New global corp sponsor revealed Sept 18th!!

[Craig_H]

Seems to me that if they were, Rafa would be kicking up a fuss, but he seems quite happy, so i'd say no, no promises were broken, and you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers or on forums that hate the yanks.

It's nothing to do with papers or forums. I just dont believe that Rafa would've happily signed a contract which the basis of which entitled him to no transfer funds, other than those which were generated through player sales.

[Scratch]

They were the ones who put the 60 day 'spade in the ground' deadline in place - they were either lying or incompetent.

Or they saw the plans, thought **** that, and decided that it would be more prudent to reinvest more time into getting a stadium with more potential...a fact backed up by the beeb...Liverpool's new owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have suspended work on their proposed new stadium and ordered a review of the plans.

BBC Sport understands the pair want to examine ways of increasing the 60,000 capacity of the arena in Stanley Park.


Plus, the quote was "The shovel needs to be in the ground in the next 60 days" which implies that that was with reference to the grants in my view.

[cannotmakeit]

"Purslow, who sealed the deal on Friday, added: “It has been a very intense process but actually it’s gone smoothly.

“I must say Carlsberg have been fantastic partners for Liverpool FC over a very long time and I am very confident that we will enter into a new and different partnership with Carlsberg next season when they cease to be our shirt sponsor. I expect Carlsberg to be heavily involved in Liverpool Football Club going forward.

“Certainly their chief executive and I have discussed that and they have expressed a strong desire for that to happen.
“And when the ink is dry on this new shirt deal with Standard Chartered then I expect us to quickly sit down with Carlsberg and work out what that will look like.

“And yes, in terms of the Standard Chartered deal it’s gone relatively quickly, phenomenally quickly in terms of going from a broad commercial agreement ten days ago to a signed agreement this afternoon."

Naming rights for the Stadium (eventually) ?

[Scratch]

It's nothing to do with papers or forums. I just dont believe that Rafa would've happily signed a contract which the basis of which entitled him to no transfer funds, other than those which were generated through player sales.

He probably didn't sign that contract as you put it, but he was also more than likely made aware that any contract extensions etc would come out of his budget...i say again, if Rafa was unhappy, do you honestly believe he'd have kept the smile on his face?

[Craig_H]

He probably didn't sign that contract as you put it, but he was also more than likely made aware that any contract extensions etc would come out of his budget...i say again, if Rafa was unhappy, do you honestly believe he'd have kept the smile on his face?

There's such a thing as politically-correct rhetoric.

What i will say is that Rafa's come out against the yanks publicly on a few occasions and it was arguably close to costing him his job, but for immense fan support and good results.

Now we've seen that we've had no budget to enable us to rise to another level and compete with Man Utd and Chelsea - and arguably City too.

And then, just a day or two ago, Reina comes out in an article and slates the yanks for not backing the manager with cash.

Manager's moutpiece? You bet your ****ing life.

[Scratch]

There's such a thing as politically-correct rhetoric.

What i will say is that Rafa's come out against the yanks publicly on a few occasions and it was arguably close to costing him his job, but for immense fan support and good results.

Now we've seen that we've had no budget to enable us to rise to another level and compete with Man Utd and Chelsea - and arguably City too.

And then, just a day or two ago, Reina comes out in an article and slates the yanks for not backing the manager with cash.

Manager's moutpiece? You bet your ****ing life.

Weird, i read that article and saw no slating of the two yanks...??

[The_weatherman]

I'm pretty certain it will be. Sponsership will pay a big whack of it off (Standard Chartered Anfield Arena anyone?) and then the added revenue from the Stadium will pay the rest. Should pay for itself within 10-20 years, without affecting the club income. And it will add a big wedge onto the club value, which is what G/H want.

I think we have unrealistic ideas of the sponsorship figures for stadiums, Arsenal's deal amounte to something like 100 million but that included the shirt the deal iirc and was a rather long deal as well.

Arsenal are in trouble with cash and their owners don't have to pay off huge debts so I don't see anything happening on the stadium front until the debt has been payed off at least to a large part.

And iirc Hicks came into Corinthians with all sorts of plans including building a stadium, and none of that materialised although the club got into all sort of trouble.

Kudos on the shirt deal though, hopefully that eases the pressure on Rafa.

[Craig_H]

Weird, i read that article and saw no slating of the two yanks...??

Maybe take off the blindfold then

Reina was clearly calling on the yanks to back the manager with funds. Short of coming out and calling them cunts, which he obviously cant do, he said all that he could say without getting himself into bother, and it was obvious what the underlying message was.

[Scratch]

To compare the economics of the Brazilian league (Corinthians) and the EPL is ludicrous. A stadium built in our league, with a massive waiting list, is a completely different prospect to building one in poverty stricken brazil.

[Craig_H]

Do they use play-dough where we would use steel?

[Scratch]

Maybe take off the blindfold then

Reina was clearly calling on the yanks to back the manager with funds. Short of coming out and calling them cunts, which he obviously cant do, he said all that he could say without getting himself into bother, and it was obvious what the underlying message was.

No, he said it would be nice/lovely/good if they could...but they can't....There isn't frustration, there's resignation...try taking of your yank hating specs and reading the piece in a different light.

"There isn't frustration, there's resignation," Reina says. "The buying power of clubs is very different. You can't sign players if you don't have money and if there is no money, that's it. As a player, there's nothing you can do. We know what's in the squad; we can't do anything about it. All we can do is roll up our sleeves, work hard and try to win matches.

"It would be good if the owners made an effort economically, if they pushed. It would be lovely if we could find ourselves in an economic position where we can bring players in and build a squad that can compete with other sides. But it's up to the owners to try to bring players in, not us. It would be nice if we had enough money to build a squad that can compete with Chelsea, for example.

[Scratch]

Do they use play-dough where we would use steel?

Silly putty works better, more elasticity. Nowt better than a silly-putty stadium swaying to a samba beat.

[dww]

Or they saw the plans, thought **** that, and decided that it would be more prudent to reinvest more time into getting a stadium with more potential...a fact backed up by the beeb...Liverpool's new owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have suspended work on their proposed new stadium and ordered a review of the plans.

BBC Sport understands the pair want to examine ways of increasing the 60,000 capacity of the arena in Stanley Park.


Plus, the quote was "The shovel needs to be in the ground in the next 60 days" which implies that that was with reference to the grants in my view.

So they didn't look at the most important part of the commercial future of the club before they bought it? Again you run in to a point where you have to think they were incompetent or lying about their determination for a stadium.

[The_weatherman]

To compare the economics of the Brazilian league (Corinthians) and the EPL is ludicrous. A stadium built in our league, with a massive waiting list, is a completely different prospect to building one in poverty stricken brazil.

I'm not comparing the economics though, I am saying that Hicks has a history of failing and going back on his word. I am not sure you can dispute that. I am willing to compare the economics of Arsenal and Liverpool, Wenger has been keeping his wallet tight and tehre are conflicting stories as to why, but their stadium has been a millstone and our will be as well, and taking into our level of debt plus the stadium loan it is too much for me.

[Craig_H]

No, he said it would be nice/lovely/good if they could...but they can't....There isn't frustration, there's resignation...try taking of your yank hating specs and reading the piece in a different light.


"It would be good if the owners made an effort economically, if they pushed. It would be lovely if we could find ourselves in an economic position where we can bring players in and build a squad that can compete with other sides. But it's up to the owners to try to bring players in, not us. It would be nice if we had enough money to build a squad that can compete with Chelsea, for example.

That paragraph there, is clear as anything. It would be good if they made an effort money-wise = they arent making an effort. He didnt say "It'd be good if they could, but they cant".

And then "it's upto the owners" - clear message there too.

In fact, i wouldnt be surprised if Rafa had virtually confered with reina about this beforehand. It's blatent what's being said, i'm genuinely surprised you see it so differently.

And yes, i hate the yanks for the **** they've put my club through. I'm stunned at any Liverpool fan who doesnt hate them for it.